Research has shown that many companies believe that the planning and budgeting process within business organizations is broken. Many managers believe that the planning and budgeting process takes too long, requires too many people, and does not significantly help a business organization meet its goals.
The traditional approaches to planning and budgeting are widely criticized. A number of criticisms of the traditional approaches have been identified including: budgets are time consuming and costly to put together; budgets constrain responsiveness and flexibility and are often a barrier to change; budgets are rarely strategically focused and often contradictory; budgets add little value, especially given the time required to prepare them; budgets concentrate on cost reduction and not on value creation; budgets strengthen vertical command and control; budgets do not reflect the emerging network structures that organizations are adopting; budgets encourage “gaming” and perverse behaviors; budgets are developed and updated too infrequently, usually annually; budgets are based on unsupported assumptions and guess-work; budgets reinforce departmental barriers rather than encourage knowledge sharing; and budgets make people feel under-valued.
For example, a major car manufacture estimates that its planning and budgeting process costs 1.2 billion dollars to run. A major European automobile maker reported that 20 percent of all of its management time was tied up in the group's budgeting and planning process prior to its decision recently to abolish budgets. Published literature suggests that the average company with annual sales of one billion dollars spends 25,000 person-days per year planning and measuring performance. In contrast, the upper quartile is 6,000 person-days per year and the best is about 700 person-days per year. The CEO of one of the largest American corporations was quoted as saying “The budget is the bane of corporate America. It should never have existed . . . Making a budget is an exercise in minimalization. You're always getting the lowest out of people, because everyone is negotiating to get the lowest number.”
Budgeting has also been criticized as producing and presenting the wrong target. According to this view, as soon as a company introduces a budget the aim becomes to beat the budget. However, the true aim of a company should not be to beat the budget. The true aim should be to beat the competition.
Traditional planning and budgeting is viewed as the periodic process by which organizations tend to define their forward operational expenditures and forecasted incomes. In its traditional sense, it is a top-down process, whereby budget packets go out from the corporate office to various divisions and operating units, accompanied by forms to be filled in and sales and operational forecasts to be completed. Once the necessary data has been entered, these budget packs are returned “bottom-up” to the corporate office. Subsequently, multiple iterations, which include the same path, are performed until final agreement is achieved. The resulting budget is usually produced weeks or months after the initial distribution of the budget forms, and this sets the “limits” to operate within and targets to be achieved, for the next budget period which is usually one year. Typically, monthly variance reports are produced and discussed.
A predominant theme in some of the literature on budgeting is that planning and budgeting processes traditionally used in many organizations are failing to deliver results. Fundamentally, the problem is that they add limited value to management of businesses. They are too time consuming and costly to undertake and they encourage political behavior and game playing rather than driving of business performance.
The budgeting and planning systems used in many firms today were developed many years ago for an industrial age, which was relatively static and simple to understand. Today's economy is much more turbulent, and attempts to develop long-term, fixed plans based on this old business model are naive. Underlying this theme is the recognition that since its inception in the 19th century, cost management has gradually changed to cost accounting. Originally the aim was to provide a method of analysis that delivered valuable insights into how the business was performing, and why. Now, in many organizations, cost accounting has become so routine and pervasive that it is effectively a mechanistic procedure that managers feel they must perform. The impact of this has been that traditional management accounting, and the associated budgeting and planning processes, have lost their relevance to business and decision-making since the figures they contain are widely known to be of questionable validity and hence, dubious value.
A number of different “better budgeting” approaches have been suggested. Activity Based Budgeting (ABB) draws from well-established theories in Activity Based Costing (ABC) and Activity Based Management (ABM). ABM involves structuring the organization's activities and business processes, so that they better meet customer and external needs. ABB builds on this and seeks to ensure that any resource and capital allocation decisions that are made are consistent with the ABM analysis. Effectively ABB involves planning and controlling along the lines of value-adding activities and processes. Advocates of this approach have claimed that it can result in cost savings of between 10% and 20% through the implementation of better methods of working and the elimination of bureaucracy.
In Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB) rather than basing budgets on previous years or periods, expenditures must be re-justified during each budgeting cycle. Some see Zero-Based Budgeting as the best attempt in many years to overcome the weaknesses of traditional budgeting, because it avoids building on the inefficiencies and inaccuracies of previous years. The problem, however, is that it is too time consuming to repeat every year, since it requires a company to build budgets from scratch. This is unnecessary in a stable business environment, and in fact is unlikely to deliver significant value on a continuous bases. That is because constantly challenging assumptions in a stable operating environment is unlikely to result in new insights. Indeed, a company can only get this sort of a set-change once every several years. More importantly, both ABB and ZBB do not really address the endemic shortcomings of traditional budgeting. Certainly, they provide alternative approaches to budgeting, but they are still time consuming, still result in game playing and add limited value after their first application.
Rolling Budgets and Forecasts relate to the need to make budgeting and forecasting more frequent to keep pace with changing circumstances. Methodologies in this area include rolling budgets, perpetual planning and rolling forecasts. These approaches are seen as more responsive to changing circumstances because they solve the problems associated with infrequent budgeting and hence result in more accurate forecasts. They are also designed to overcome the problems associated with budgeting to a fixed point in time—i.e., the year end and the often dubious practices that such cut-offs encourage. A disadvantage of the rolling budget approach is that it can result in greater cost to the organization because budgets have to be put together more frequently. Rolling forecasts, however, overcome this problem because they are often developed based on business models which in turn incorporate specific assumptions about the drivers of income and expenditure.
Value-Based Budgeting, while not an explicit replacement for budgeting and planning, provides a formal and systematic approach for managing the creation of shareholder value over time. It has three elements: beliefs, principles, and processes. The main approach is that all expenditure plans should be evaluated as project appraisals and assessed in terms of the shareholder value that they will create. Proponents of the approach note its ability to link strategy and shareholder value to planning and budgeting. However, there are few demonstrated detailed techniques for implementation, so much of the discussion on the topic appears to be of a conceptual nature. In fact, some commentators have gone as far as suggesting that too many organizations have become focussed on value measurement, rather than value management, which in turn limits the focus on value creation.
The Profit Planning wheel model for planning future financial cash flows of profit centers by assessing whether an organization or unit generates sufficient cash, creates economic value and attracts sufficient financial resources for investment. In theory this approach ensures consideration of an organization's short and long-term prosperity when preparing its financial plans. However, there are few examples of its practical applications.
The advocates of these approaches all claim benefits in organizations that have applied them. Case studies suggest that these benefits vary from marginal to substantial improvements, in terms of cost, time, communication and control. However, critics argue that each of the approaches effectively only involve re-engineering the traditional budgeting and planning processes and do not address fundamental problems. Moreover, there is evidence to show that while some of these approaches have solid theories underlying them, they are not being well implemented or well received by the organization. The literature suggests, for example, that many high level managers are dissatisfied with their current planning and budgeting processes, even when the companies had re-engineered them, and that many top managers within companies that have implemented one or more of these approaches believed that there were significant gaps between how financial executives had implemented the plans and how the top managers thought they should be able to apply them. Clearly, improvements are needed in the budgeting and planning process.